New from Cambridge University Press!

Edited By Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt

This book "fills the unquestionable need for a comprehensive and up-to-date handbook on the fast-developing field of pragmatics" and "includes contributions from many of the principal figures in a wide variety of fields of pragmatic research as well as some up-and-coming pragmatists."

AUTHOR: Kniffka, Hannes TITLE: Working in Language and Law: A German PerspectivePUBLISHER: Palgrave Macmillan YEAR: 2007 Blake Stephen Howald, JD, Departmentof Linguistics, Georgetown University SUMMARY This book is not a biography, but Kniffka's experiences are used to bolster avery robust and multifaceted discussion of authorship attribution, the ''languagecrimes'' (Shuy 1993) of defamation, libel, and slander, and the role that anexpert linguist plays in the complex system of law. While those practitionerswho focus on these issues will have the most to gain from Kniffka's insights,this book is, despite being a bit technical, fairly accessible for those with anon-practitioner interest in language & law (the broad characterization pairinglinguistics with some aspect of the legal system) and forensic linguistics (thenarrow focus of applying linguistics to issues of language evidence, henceforthFL). The book is divided into four parts. Part I, consisting of Chapter One,''Forensic Linguistics: Its Relatives and Neighbors-An InterdisciplinaryPerspective'', discusses the placement of language & law as a subset of appliedlinguistics, i.e. the application of theoretical linguistics and a number of''interdisciplinary'' fields of linguistics, e.g. sociolinguistics, corpuslinguistics, and psycholinguistics, to analyses in the legal system (28). FL isconsidered a subfield of language & law and, Kniffka argues, an auxiliaryforensic science; a sister to both forensic phonetics and forensic handwritinganalysis (29). Kniffka also provides an introduction to the German legal system,including the functions of law enforcement, forensic sciences, and the conductof the expert linguist, as well as comparative legal perspectives. For example,in Germany, it is exclusively the right of the court to call for experts (asopposed to the U.S., where experts can be called by the court, but are almostalways called by parties to litigations) (8). Kniffka provides this structuralbackdrop so as to orient the reader and place the remaining chapters in theirproper linguistic and legal context. Part II provides a more detailed discussion of the practical, theoretical, andmethodological considerations in providing expert testimony in authorshipattribution. Providing expert testimony is a highly constrained endeavor, bothfrom a perspective of legal procedure and from a perspective of tailoringtestimony to a given audience, i.e. a judge or jury. The discussion in ChapterTwo, ''The Linguist as an Expert Witness in German Courts: A View from the1970s'', does well by illustrating the discussion of this rather complex systemwith examples taken from Kniffka's experiences in providing expert testimony.While the advice given would be most relevant in the German context (andpossibly other civil code based systems), it is generalizable to other legalsystems. For example, the recommendation that an expert should not make theirreports and testimony overly complex and technical for fear of alienating legalprofessionals (133) is sound advice for the U.S. legal system, and, arguably,any expert's involvement with any legal system. Chapter Three, ''Status and Tasks of Forensic Linguistic Authorship Analysis'',focuses on key questions in authorship attribution. For example, how is thenotion of idiolect used in authorship attribution? How should qualitative andquantitative analyses be approached? A consideration of these questions seeks toground the reader in the theoretical and practical concerns of authorshipattribution in regard to the legal system. Chapter Four, '''Shibboleths' as Data of Linguistic Behavior'', systematicallyanalyzes a fundamental aspect of authorship attribution: namely, is authorshipattribution a measure of idiolect, or a measure of group level characteristicsof language use? Kniffka's ultimate conclusion is that, in the majority ofcases, ''group-specific features can sometimes be used to identify a particularspeaker, not, however, as an individual, but as a representative of one group orspeech community as opposed to another'' (108, referencing Sapir (1927)). Part III contains several chapters, each of which focuses on a different topicin the analysis of defamation and authorship attribution. While primarilyconcerned with current research in Germany, the discussion is generalizable topractitioners within all legal systems. Chapter Five, ''Libel, Linguists, andLitigation in Germany'', provides a well-balanced discussion of the linguist'srole in providing analyses of defamation. Kniffka provides here a comprehensiveview of the intricate legal aspects of the laws implicated by defamation, aswell as the linguistic considerations of performing an analysis within theoperation of these laws, and the procedural considerations of working withlawyers and judges. Chapter Six, ''A Heuristic Author and Writer/Typist Taxonomy'', provides a featurebased approach to analyzing different modalities in written language evidence.Questions addressed here include how to analyze differences between authors andwriters (who are not always the same person), and differences between texttypes, e.g. threats, extortion letters, and blackmail. Chapter Seven, ''TheSystem and Diagnostic Potential of Orthographic Data in Forensic LinguisticAuthorship Attribution'', and Chapter Eight, ''Orthographic Data in ForensicLinguistic Authorship Analysis'', are, as their titles suggest, concerned withthe analytical potential of orthography in authorship attribution. Kniffkaindicates that, at best, there is diagnostic potential in orthographic data inauthorship attribution and could be considered in a larger analysis ofauthorship, but should not be consider as a sole indicator (234). Part IV consists of two short chapters, acting as an epilogue addressing whatimprovements need to be made to the field and what is currently being done toaddress these improvements. Chapter Nine, ''Language and Law: Some Needs'',provides a systematized view, based on Kniffka's experiences, of cooperativepractices that will improve interdisciplinary communication between linguistsand legal professionals. In particular, improving the education of legalprofessionals about what contributions linguistics can realistically make to thelegal system is paramount (252). To this end, it is incumbent on the linguistto, in turn, be knowledgeable about the inner workings of the law and forensicsciences. Chapter Ten, ''Outlook'', finishes the book with some key observations and piecesof advice for FL moving forward; these include, most notably, the realizationthat computational and sophisticated classification methodologies are changingthe landscape of how authorship attribution is performed. However, despite themethodological 'update', Kniffka makes it very clear that the core theoreticalconcepts should not be deviated from. In particular, the need for linguists tobe empirical is something that should never be lost in an analysis (266-67). EVALUATIONFor those who work and study in language & law, Hannes Kniffka, a professor oflinguistics at Bonn University, has been one of the long-time constants in thefield, consistently providing thoughtful and complete analyses of major issuesin, especially, FL. While Kniffka has enjoyed wide readership in Europe, he isless well known in the United States. In the welcome, and, arguably longoverdue, _Working in Language and Law: A German Perspective_ (henceforth WLLGP),Kniffka chronicles his long and active career in the German legal system as aforensic linguist and provides his seasoned perspective on the field of FL.

WLLGP is a multifaceted work that balances a number of legal, linguistic, andcomparative considerations while following a logical and systematic progressionfrom beginning to end. WLLGP serves in part as a ''how to'' guide for forensiclinguists and in part experienced commentary on the field in Germany andelsewhere. It is an ambitious work, accomplishing in one book what Shuy (1993,1997, 2005, 2006) has arguably accomplished over several shorter works. However,it is because of the ambitiousness of the work that several shortcomings emerge.For example, the style is a bit inconsistent, most likely due to themultimodality of the chapters; some are original English-language prose, andsome are translations and adaptations from German articles. Aside from thesetechnical observations, there are other points of criticism. In Part I, while Kniffka's broad structural characterization of FL and language& law is apt, not all of the relationships considered are as concrete as Kniffkamay make them seem. In particular, Kniffka's placement of FL in relation tographology is treading into some deep water that deserves more discussion thanwhat is presented. Albeit Kniffka is presenting the German perspective and Itrust that it is indeed the case that the cooperative and interdisciplinarysetting is such that this evidence-centric rather than theoretic-centricgrouping works, the theoretical and methodological cores of linguistics andgraphology do not make this grouping work across legal systems. It can bedangerous to group two theoretically different fields together for fear ofmisunderstanding in the legal system. In the U.S. system, overgeneralization oflinguistics has been a key source of misunderstanding on the part of legalprofessionals about linguistics (Kniffka acknowledges this in terms ofrecognizing that judges often feel that their opinion on language evidence isjust as good as a trained linguist (250-52)). This misunderstanding has damagedthe reputation of linguistics in the U.S. legal setting (Tiersma & Solan 2002,Howald 2006). In WLLGP, while the example analyses performed in Part III are extremely wellreasoned and meticulous, there is a noticeable lack of currency in thetheoretical justifications. While there is arguably nothing in recent theorythat would invalidate the core theoretical assumptions of the analysesperformed, which in and of itself is a testament to Kniffka's scientificattention and care, a mismatch is nonetheless created between the ''cutting edge''quality of the analyses performed and the dated references used to justify them.For example, the discussions of text-typing and writer/author taxonomies arevery relevant for current practices in FL and represent a recent shift inforensic science generally away from individual based classifications towardhigher level or group classifications. However, when only, for example, Sapir(1927) and Labov (1966) are provided as theoretical justifications for the work,the analyses feel less impressive. This observation does not apply to all of Kniffka's analyses. For example,chapters Seven and Eight, which draw significantly on Kniffka's early work, areespecially informative in regard to the use of orthography in FL. Kniffka linkshis analyses well to contemporary issues in authorship attribution. Inparticular, the use of prescriptive grammar informed variables, in and ofthemselves, have been shown to be unreliable as indicators of authorship (Chaski2001). One key reason for this is that some practitioners of authorshipattribution make almost exclusive use of variables such as punctuation, sentencestructure and misspellings, but do not employ empirical methodologies; oftenconflating prescriptivism and descriptivism. For Kniffka, empiricism is one ofthe most important considerations in authorship attribution analyses. The use ofprescriptive grammar variables would be much less controversial if practitionersutilized the level of empirical and analytical care that Kniffka employs.

These criticisms aside, it is important to mention that, in addition to thecontributions WLLGP makes to authorship attribution and comparative perspectiveson FL, Chapter Five on the Language Crime of Defamation is a near prototypicalexample of what current research in FL should arguably conform to: a balancedinterdisciplinary approach between linguistics and law (see also Howald 2006,Solan & Tiersma, 2004, 2005). Kniffka masterfully balances a discussion betweenthe legal implications and linguistic analysis of these issues withoutalienating two such divergent audiences as legal and linguistic professionals.This is a very difficult task that few have been able to perform well, yetKniffka does so easily. WLLGP is an impressive work that should certainly enjoy wide readership withinthe language & law community. For those who have a curiosity about FL, thiswork, while technical, is accessible and nuanced. For those who have a stronginterest in FL, especially those practitioners of authorship attribution andlanguage crimes, WLLGP epitomizes the type of care that should be performed inFL analyses. This could only have been achieved by someone of Kniffka's caliber,experience and ability in balancing the fields of linguistics and law. REFERENCESChaski, Carole. (2001) Empirical evaluation of language-based authoridentification techniques. _International Journal of Speech, Language and theLaw_ 8(1).1-65. Howald, Blake. (2006) Comparative and non-comparative forensiclinguistic analysis techniques: methodologies for negotiating the interface oflinguistics and evidentiary jurisprudence in the American judiciary. _Universityof Detroit Mercy Law Review_ 83.285-330. Labov, William (1966) _The Socialstratification of English in New York City_. Washington, DC: Center for AppliedLinguistics. Sapir, Edward (1927) Speech as a personality trait. _AmericanJournal of Sociology_ 32. 892-905. Reprinted as Speech and personality. In N.Markel ed. (1969) _Psycholinguistics. An Introduction to the Study of Speech andPersonality_. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press: 44-56. Shuy, Roger (1993) _Languagecrimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the Courtroom_. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell. Shuy, Roger (1997) _The language of confession, interrogation, anddeception_. California: Sage. Shuy, Roger (2005) _Creating language crime: Howlaw enforcement uses (and misuses) language_. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shuy, Roger (2006) _Linguistics in the courtroom: A practical guide_. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Solan, Larry & Peter Tiersma (2004) Authoridentification in American courts. _Applied Linguistics_ 25(4).448-465. Solan,Larry & Peter Tiersma (2005) _Speaking of crime: The language of criminaljustice_. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tiersma, Peter & Larry Solan(2002) The linguist on the witness stand: Forensic linguistics in americancourts. _Language_ 78.229-30. ABOUT THE REVIEWER Blake Stephen Howald, JD received his BA in linguistics fromthe University of Pittsburgh and his JD from the University of Detroit MercySchool of Law. He is currently a second-year Ph.D. student in linguistics atGeorgetown University. In addition to writing and researching about the field ofLanguage & Law and Forensic Linguistics, Mr. Howald is researching thediscourse, cognitive and pragmatic aspects of violent criminal interactions.